Norman H. Cohen <ncohen@watson.ibm.com> wrote:> When an Ada compiler rejects my source, it is because compile-time> consistency checks have caught me trying to do something that does> not make sense. I am grateful to have had the mistake caught before> I wasted hours debugging. I am far more frustrated by C compilers> that happily compile code containing the kind of errors that an Ada> compiler would have caught.

Daniel J. Salomon (salomon@silver.cs.umanitoba.ca) wrote:: I would bet that a lot of the code that you wrote and was rejected by: an Ada compiler was not that illogical or unsafe. I bet that most of: it was actually pretty reasonable.

: Ada's philosophy seems to be, "When in doubt, forbid it." As a: result, a programmer can spend a lot of time turning sensible safe: code into code that religiously observes all of Ada rules.

I must be missing something here. I've never had that much trouble
writing Ada programs. The rules are not obtuse. I've always found
that sensible safe code and code that religiously obverves all the Ada
rules are one and the same. That statement just doesn't jibe with my
experience in using Ada. It's like saying that the compiler should
use situational ethics to decide if the code is correct.

: C's philosopy seems to be, "When in doubt, permit it. It just might: be correct." The freedom that this gives programmers to create new: ways of solving problems may be one of the reasons that C remains so: popular, despite the fact that it it unquestionably unsafe.

Having programmed in both C and Ada, I completely disagree that C
provides more capability to create new ways of solving problems (might
create new problems though).